Great Article on Why U.S. Should NOT Intervene in Syria

by Rich Rubenstein on June 16, 2013 · 1 comment

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Ramzy Mardini explains in the New York Times why arming the Syrian opposition is a terrible idea: see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/bad-idea-mr-president.html?ref=opinion. I shared this on Facebook, offering a comment to emphasize that conflict resolution peace talks do NOT merely ratify the parties’ position on the battlefield, as some alleged IR experts insist — if properly facilitated, they identify underlying conditions generating the civil war and methods of ameliorating them.

The Assad regime’s authoritarianism is one such condition, but they are many more equally important; for example, Syria’s wildly uneven, pro-corporate economic development; the insecurity of her non-Sunni minorities; Saudi and Gulf State support for anti-Shia violence throughout the region; Western and Israeli geopolitical meddling, etc. What is needed is not just a US- Russian-led peace conference (although this would be a good start) but a REGIONAL process that would deal with the conditions fomenting regional war between Sunnis and Shiites. The Syrian regime SHOULD come to the table even though they are winning the war. And the Obama regime should NOT intervene for the reasons so well stated by Ramzy Mardiini.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

D.C. Buschmann September 6, 2013 at 2:13 am

I agree. Conflict resolution peace talks led by US/Russia would be ideal.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: